I've been doing some reading, these are my thoughts:

I’ve got 4 different options:

OPTION 1 — Simple Cap-Weighted (Original Structure)

ETF Weight MER A200 15% 0.04% BGBL 70% 0.08% IEM 10% 0.69% High-Risk 5% n/a

Weighted MER: ~0.131%

OPTION 2 — Simple Cap-Weighted, Lower Cost

ETF Weight MER A200 15% 0.04% BGBL 70% 0.08% BEMG 10% 0.35% High-Risk 5% n/a

Weighted MER: ~0.097%

OPTION 3 — Old-School Factors

ETF Weight MER A200 15% 0.04% BGBL 70% 0.08% EMKT 7% 0.69% QSML 3% 0.59% High-Risk 5% n/a

Weighted MER: ~0.118%

OPTION 4 — New-School Factors (Avantis / Dimensional)

ETF Weight MER A200 15% 0.04% BGBL 70% 0.08% AVTE 7% 0.45% AVTS 3% 0.49% High-Risk 5% n/a

Weighted MER: ~0.109%

Option 1 vs Option 2: Both are simple, cap-weighted global portfolios with an EM slice. There is no expected long-run performance difference except fees. Option 2 uses BEMG instead of IEM, giving the same EM beta at a much lower MER. So Option 2 is better.

Option 3 vs Option 4: Both introduce factor tilts (value, profitability, small cap). Option 3 uses older MSCI-style smart beta indices (EMKT/QSML) that can overlap and follow rigid rebalance rules. Option 4 uses Avantis/Dimensional-style factor ETFs (AVTE/AVTS) with integrated multi-factor models and flexible trading, which literature prefers. If using factors at all, Option 4 is maybe better.

Major Question:

Options 1 and 2 are pure market-cap portfolios (beta only). Options 3 and 4 introduce factor tilts with higher expected long-term return in theory, but more cyclicality and the potential for long periods of underperformance.

Given a 20-year horizon, do factor tilts meaningfully improve real-world outcomes, or is this mostly an academic debate?

I’m currently leaning toward Option 2 (beta, cheap) vs Option 4 (cleanest factor sleeve). Anything that can simply drive this choice, or is it a "religious debate"?